THIS WEEK:

Apollo Space Team: Neil Armstrong died on August 25, 2012, at the age of 82. His small step on the lunar surface was one of the great triumphs of modern science. The motto of the Apollo space team, which accomplished this mission, is worthy of being remembered by all scientists. Please see links under In Tribute for comments by two of those who knew him.

*****************

AMS: The American Meteorological Society (AMS) released an Information Statement adopted by the AMS Council, without the participation of its membership. It cites and follows the reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the latter two reports endorsing the first. All the statements assert humans, particularly carbon dioxide emissions, are the cause of the warming since 1950. Since a number of appropriate comments can be found under the links provided below, only a few comments will be made here.

The AMS Statement correctly asserts that the warming trend is greatest in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, which is new. The Statement fails to mention that there has been no comparable warming in the Southern Hemisphere and that the continent of Antarctica is cooling. Carbon dioxide-caused warming provides no explanation for this difference.

The Statement asserts that there has been significant loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. The latter part is not correct, and the Statement does not address net loss.

The Statement sidesteps the fact that there has been no warming trend for over a decade.

Interestingly, the Statement discusses increased water vapor from warming, but fails to discuss the touted human fingerprint. Prior reports claimed that pronounced warming in the atmosphere over the tropics are the distinct human fingerprint. Has the human fingerprint moved?

In brief, the statement appeals to authority, and is short on data. Please see links under Defending the Orthodoxy and Questioning the Orthodoxy.

*****************

Republican Platform: In general, TWTW tries to avoid political controversy. However, Science Insider, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) contained an article on the science found in the Platform (the official statement of goals for the party if elected). If a similar article appears on the Democratic Platform, which will come later, TWTW will link to it.

Another Republican issue is the assertion of energy independence for North America (Canada, US, and Mexico) by 2020. Such a claim would have been absolutely ridiculed a few years ago. However, the new application of various techniques have so expanded the developable resources of oil and natural gas on the continent, and in the surrounding waters, that the feasibility is no longer unthinkable, though the time frame may be overly optimistic.

The respected oil and natural-gas consulting firm, Bentek Energy states that independence is physically feasible sometime in the near future and that US imports of oil from nations other than Canada will fall by 41%, or more, by 2016. The US is already independent in coal and natural gas. It is the development of oil in Canada and the application of hydraulic fracturing of shale for oil and natural-gas liquids, plus deep-underwater drilling, which will drive this profound change. Please note that such independence does not mean price independence from the world oil market or that independence is desirable. Unfortunately, the details prompting Bentek to reach its conclusions are proprietary. Please see links under The Political Games Continue and Energy Issues – US.

*****************

Carbon Taxes: A trick used by some politicians is to propose a tax or a regulation, and then claim the tax or regulation must be implemented because businesses need certainty, as if the threat of the event is more economically damaging than the actual event. EPA’s Lisa Jackson is noted for this trick in proposing regulations and Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard did this in imposing a carbon tax. But for politicians, certainty is very short lived. In two months time, the government of Australia is suggesting changing the carbon tax and linking it to the EU market, whatever that entails.

Christopher Monckton calculated a cost-benefit ratio for Australia’s carbon tax as compared to the expected reduction in global warming. The ratio came to 59/1.6. That is, the tax costs about 36 times more than the benefits. The benefits would not cover the costs of administration of the tax (about 14%) – much less the actual tax.

A study by MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change on a proposed US carbon tax estimated that carbon taxes would generate about $1.5 Trillion over 10 years. The taxes were based on an earlier Congressional Budget Office report that used a $20-per-ton carbon tax. Amazingly, the study assumed full employment. A carbon tax would cause significant economic dislocation and drive unemployment.

The study is similar to the study by the Congressional Research Service in February 2009 that the stimulus bill will keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%. It has been above 8% for three and one-half years, while the labor force shrank significantly. If the size of the labor force for 2009 is used in the calculations, the current unemployment rate is about 11%.

Please see links under Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes.

*****************

Race with China: The race with China for dominance in 21st century electricity from solar panels appears to be ending, with all participants losing. The Chinese solar industry is crumbling with many firms facing bankruptcy. The same is happening in the US and Western Europe. Sometimes when politicians declare a race it’s best to run quickly to the sidelines. Please see links under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

*****************

Funding Friends: Dennis Ambler identified some EPA grants to various organizations, some of which may be questionable to some members of Congress. Grants include topics such as environmental justice, climate change, models, and foreign grants. Almost $5 million went to the UN Environmental Programme, including promoting environmentally sound management worldwide and global environmental agreements. Other grants include $10,476,856 over 5 years to AAAS “To establish and nurture critical links between decision-makers and scientific professionals to support public policy that benefits society” (lobbying); $4,437,241 to AAAS over five years to establish fellowships under the EPA. Not to be left out, $20,405,655 in the last 10 years went to the American Lung Association, which lobbies heavily for more EPA regulations; $1,277,500 to the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development; and $1,150,123 to Natural Resources Defense Council (3 years) for sustainable change.

No wonder EPA is popular with environmental and international groups, many of which bitterly criticize those who question EPA actions.

*****************

Amplifications and Corrections: A reader challenged TWTW for including two links which suggested that variations in solar activity influence the earth’s climate. The first dealt with the article in the journal of the American Geophysical Union on the association between the freezing of the Rhine River and solar activity. The article claimed that it was caused by variations in ultraviolet radiation. The basis of the claim was not supported, and, as such, is speculative. The second link was to a post by Tim Ball that solar wind influences weather. It was clearly stated that the association was speculative.

When TWTW links to speculative suggestions, it will make every effort to state they are speculative. As always, amplifications and corrections are deeply appreciated.

*****************

Number of the Week: During the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing held August 1st on “Update on the Latest Climate Change Science …” much was made of the statement that 98% of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and humans are the cause. Senator Sessions expressed skepticism about the statement and was somewhat belittled for his disbelief. Apparently, the poll being referenced was one published in EOS on January 20, 2009. EOS is published by the American Geophysical Union and bills itself as: “The premier international newspaper of the Earth and space sciences, EOS seeks to forge strong interdisciplinary ties among geophysicists and place the important contributions of geophysics in the context of the social and policy-making arenas.” (From its web site)

The researchers sent an online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies, and generated responses from 3,146 people to the following questions.

Q 1. “When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global

temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Few who have studied climate change would object to the first. Skeptics would object to the second. The researchers then boiled down the numbers to those who self identified themselves as “those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered ‘risen’ to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.”

Thus, the touted 98% figure is based on the responses of 0.75% of those polled. This is one more study that qualifies for inclusion in an update of the classic, How to Lie with Statistics.

###################################################

ARTICLES:

For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: http://www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

[SEPP Comment: More on NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco’s call for scientists to become politically active in the great cause (no doubt in exchange for government grants). The exaggerated belief that the status of our knowledge of climate science is sufficiently complete to take action is all too typical, as well as the belief in ability of governments to control climate change. Curry’s comments are to the point.]

[SEPP Comment: Building up to 23 new, large coal fired power plants! Wind produced only 16% of installed capacity over ten years! Comments on the new eco-flick “Fuel” which claims the US petroleum industry is faltering.]

The share of renewable energies in Germany’s power mix has shot up so high that the electricity grid and the subsidy framework has been unable to keep up. Now, the government wants to slow down the process. German commentators say that the current chaos endangers the entire project.

[SEPP Comment: The graphs of the erratic output of wind and solar and the forecasts of the share of electricity these sources will deliver highlight the challenges.]

[SEPP Comment: A third study using another set of data puts the glacier loss at 12 gigatonnes rather 50 G from the first study and about 5 G from the second study. Will there be an agreement before 2035, the year that the IPCC stated all the ice will be lost?]

[SEPP Comment: Lewis states that: contrary to the impression given in the article on the Antarctic Peninsula, there has been no statistically significant warming of the continent, which has a climate distinctly different from the peninsula.]

6 thoughts on “Weekly Climate and Energy news Roundup”

Non science types use term ‘significant’ to mean ‘major’, ‘important’, ‘large’, or other such. But if we are to take the word as a data analyst would use it, it means only ‘large enough to be detectable’, as in ‘statistically significant’.

Using the science construal of ‘significant’, then, even I would agree with that assertion. Which makes the 98% consensus even more trivial.

“The Congressional bonehead award goes to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Enron) who, on a visit to JPL, asked if Mars Pathfinder had taken an image of the flag planted there in 1969 by Neil Armstrong! Quipped Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) to the Washington Times: “We just don’t teach enough science.” Worse, Jackson Lee, who represents Houston, is a member of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee.

The first thought that crossed my mind when I read this question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” was yes, of course. People like James Hansen have been significant contributing factors changing mean global temperatures through their manipulation and elimination of past recorded temperatures.

Hello? Ice, guys, ice! You can’t let up on the lying about the ice, it’s still going down. I really expected more from you people. You can’t let reality go uncontested, people might get the right idea! Now get back to work! My minion Christy is a fine example! Maybe one of you jokers can start denying any statistically significant difference between ice and liquid water!
Maybe get ol’ Triple Point Goddard out here to misread some more graphs!

Signed,
The Devil, your boss, getting really impatient for you guys to finish warming things up like you sold your souls to me to do!